References
- ANSI S3.5. American national standard methods for the calculation of the articulation index. American National Standards Institute, 1969.
- Beck WG, Speaks C. Intelligibility of selected passages from the speech intelligibility rating (SIR) test. J of Speech Hear Res 1993; 36: 1075–82.
- Boothroyd A. Developments in speech audiometry. Sound 1968; 2: 3–10.
- Byrne D. Effects of frequency response characteristics on speech discrimination and perceived intelligibility and pleasantness of speech for hearing impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1986; 80: 494–504.
- Byrne D, Dillon H. The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 1986; 7: 257–65.
- Bryne D, Parkinson A. Reliability and sensitivity of intelligibility and pleasantness judgments of amplified speech. Aust J Audiol 1987; 9: 77–86.
- Byrne D, Parkinson A, Newall P. Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. Ear Hear 1990; 11: 40–49.
- Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd Ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
- Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C. Development of the connected speech test (CST). Ear Hear 1987; 8 (Suppl): 119–26.
- Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C, Pusakulich KM. Use of the connected speech test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear 1988; 9: 198–207.
- Cox RM, McDaniel DM. Intelligibility ratings of continuous discourse: application to hearing aid selection. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 76: 758–66.
- Cox RM, McDaniel DM. Development of the speech intelligibility rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons. J Speech Hear Res 1989; 32:347–52.
- Davis H, Silverman SR. Hearing and Deafness, 4th Ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winton, 1978.
- Falconer GA, Davis H. The intelligibility of connected discourse as a test for the 'Threshold for Speech'. Laryngoscope 1947; 57: 581–95.
- Giolas TG, Epstein A. Comparative intelligibility of word lists and continuous discourse. J Speech Hear Res 1963; 6: 349–58.
- Giolas TG. Comparative intelligibility scores of sentence lists and continuous discourse. J Aud Res 1966; 6: 31–8.
- Gray TF, Speaks CEoAbility of hearing impaired listeners to understand connected discourse. J Am Aud Soc 1978; 3: 159–66.
- Kei J, Chan T, Ma MC, Ng L, Lowe C, Lai DM, Ng YH, Kwan E. Cantonese speech audiometry for children of Hong Kong. Aust J Audiol 1991; 13:41–5.
- Kei J, Smyth V. Measuring the ability of hearing impaired school-aged children to understand connected discourse using an intelligibility selfrating procedure. Aust J Audiol 1996; 18: 23–33.
- Siegel S, Castellan NJ. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988.
- Speaks C, Parker B, Harris C, Kuhl P. Intelligibility of connected discourse. J Speech Hear Res 1972; 15: 590–602.
- Speaks C, Trine TD, Crain TR, Niccum N. A revised speech intelligibility rating (RSIR) test: listeners with normal hearing. Otol Head Neck Surg 1994; 110: 75–83.
- Studebaker GA, Bisset JD, VanOrt OM, Hoffnung S. Paired comparison judgements of relative intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1982;72:80–92.
- Walker G, Byrne O. Reliability of speech intelligibility estimation for measuring speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. Aust J Audiol 1985; 7: 23–31.